Reflections from Deniz Göktaş: The sacred, criticism, and the boundaries of humor

Good humor is, first and foremost, a sign of intelligence. Information is processed and analyzed from many angles, then presented to the interlocutor in its most mature form, either as a question or a judgment. It is, in fact, a form of literary criticism. In one sense, it is an artistic endeavor. This is a significant reason why it disturbs its subjects. The importance and weight of criticism that is recorded, valued, and finds a place within society are palpable. Those who cannot demonstrate the maturity or wisdom to respond resort to the weapon of insult. The response to criticism does not come with counter-criticism, but with accusations, a chorus of collective lynching, or the threat of punishment. 

This is exactly what happened in the recent incident regarding Deniz Göktaş. Göktaş's latest show received intense attention, especially on social media platforms. His jokes, narratives, courage, intelligence, sensitivity, and attitude were appreciated; his art was a form of humor that made people laugh, think, and question. We were faced with a well-crafted, high-quality show that involved significant effort. Given this,  the response from those disturbed by the show should have been of the same caliber and fine craftsmanship. For every word is also a mirror of the speaker.  However, Göktaş could not be met on those terms; he did not encounter a response of the same taste and intelligence. Instead, a judicial decision was issued, and according to reports in the press, it was learned that an investigation had been launched against Göktaş on charges of "insulting religious values."

As we stated above—as long as it does not contain violence or hate speech—the proper response to a word is another word. Of course, we are not obliged to agree with every word or every thought expressed. In such a case, one must respond to the interlocutor on the same ground, arming the discourse with equal strength. Indeed, the fact that a word reaches us and is valued by us demonstrates its power. 

Let us come to the subject of "insulting religious values." First, it must be stated that none of us accept the teachings of a religion or a God we do not believe in as true. By the nature of things, reality dictates this. The same reality tells us that there are currently dozens of religions and similar conceptions of God in the world. Accordingly, the book to which every believer adheres is divine. Prophets or religious leaders carry a sacred identity. However, this situation we speak of does not hold the same meaning for us. On the contrary, those believed-in doctrines and accepted holy books represent the truth for their followers, not for others.  At this point, a quote from Stephen Roberts comes to mind. He says: "I think we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do." This truth should always remain at the forefront of our minds, guiding us not for the sake of approval, but for the sake of understanding. 

We cannot ignore the place of the bond established with the sacred in the human world, both historically and in today's world. From established social relationships to the meaning of life, and from the difficulties and dilemmas humans face, the theological world opens up a mental and spiritual space. It creates a bond of membership, provides a sense of belonging, and, as the thinker said, becomes a harbor to take refuge in. However, this entire state of existence is valid for believers; expecting such effects from someone who does not possess faith is contrary to the nature of things. Therefore, the sacred has this characteristic in our world, but not in the house of the other. Yet, the meanings attributed to the sacred must also be kept in mind, both in a human and intellectual sense. This should serve as a separate guide. 

So, how should the other establish a bond with the sacred? How should one approach their world, their statements, and their claims?

There is no doubt that, not only regarding the sacred but in any field, discourse involving insults, disparagement, etc., is not accepted as a language of communication. This cannot be the ground upon which a subject constructs themselves; furthermore, because this language will produce a similar discourse in response, it cannot create a high-quality environment for discussion. Therefore, even from a humorous perspective, what we seek is a language that carries a certain level of critical quality and is equipped from an aesthetic and literary standpoint. And this language will not accept a discourse, judgment, or claim that is sacred to believers, but will instead offer another argument, discourse, or rhetoric against that judgment. Expecting otherwise is not reasonable. For example, there is a rat temple in India believed to be sacred. Every year, thousands of Hindus visit this temple to worship. This belief is not binding on those who do not belong to that religion; therefore, it can be criticized, questioned, and different ideas can be put forward about it. However, the transformation of this criticism into insults, disparagement, or the denigration of believers does not increase the quality of the criticism; on the contrary, it distances it from an intellectual foundation.

Let us come to what Deniz Göktaş said in his latest show. As alleged, those words cannot be evaluated as "insulting religious values."  First of all, we are dealing with a comedy show. Göktaş passes every subject he addresses through a mental sieve and presents it to us through the filter of humor. Therefore, just as there is no malice toward any subject, there can be no feeling or intent of "insult." The stage, the language, and the content are all parts of a whole. And that whole gives us humor. You may agree or disagree with what is said. Anything beyond that is empty talk.  Indeed, if we look for an allegation of insult or disparagement in every thought we disagree with, this leads us to a society of hatred and distances us from democracy and pluralistic thought. If that is not the goal, the error of the path taken is obvious.

On the other hand, if you are looking for those who insult religion and its values, and if you are harboring a sensitivity regarding religious matters, the places you should look are not comedy shows, but the pulpits of communities, politics, and sects established for personal or group interests. Because religion has been completely commodified there, turned into a kind of stepping stone for specific goals and interests. The point to which this transformation has arrived is quite sad; for those with eyes to see, it no longer has any connection to respectability. 

Finally, let us say this: Today, the issue is not just Deniz Göktaş. It is not just a comedian who is being detained, but the act of objection itself. It is not just a show that is being questioned, but the legitimacy of critical reason in the public sphere. Those who knock on the door of a comedian today may turn to the podium of an academic, the pen of a journalist, the stage of an artist, or the social media post of an ordinary citizen tomorrow. Because oppression is never satisfied with a single person; when it makes silencing a method, it aims to bring the entire society into line.

The real issue is how we respond to words that disturb us. Any power that resorts to punishment instead of responding to an idea declares that it does not trust the truth. From that point on, the law ceases to be the scale of justice and turns into the baton of political power. If humor becomes a crime, criticism a threat, and objection a subject of investigation in a country, then it is not just people who are being judged there; it is freedom itself, democracy itself, and the honor of the law.